memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Trials and Tribble-ations (episode)
Episode talk page Maintenance links __TOC__ Did the TOS stars get paid for the use of their images? I remember Walter Koenig joking that he got five times as much for the episode as he got for the series. Excelsior 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) I remember something along those lines. Does anybody else know? Tough Little Ship 13:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) Votes for Trials and Tribble-ations *'Support'. Another well balanced article. Ben Sisqo 23:36, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) **'Strong Oppose' The summary ins't even close to detailed enough. It also doesn't follow the normal summary format. Tobyk777 02:08, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) **1) You just supported an article of similar length above. **2) I think it's clear nobody wants the nominations that tell you every time someone picks his nose. **3) I never liked that whole five act thing because it kind of ruins the effect. *4) Strong support. Vedek Dukat 02:28, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Toby... Would you rather have it be like These are the Voyages? And I say that with respect toward Defiant and Shran, it's just too long for our purposes. Ben Sisqo 04:34, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Neutral based on the fact that I know nothing about TOS and can't judge the background. I've also only glanced over the summary, and assuming Emissary is the "right" length, it may be a little short, but not enough to oppose based on length. --Schrei 06:05, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) *You guys make some good points, opposition withdrawn. I moved it back to the top of the page. Tobyk777 18:21, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. I have tried to fix some tense changes, but as my grammar is not the best, someone should probably double check it. I also wonder if there is more information available concerning how they did the mergning of the old footage with the new. That would be fascinating. Its a good article in any case. Makon 18:58, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Oppose'. I don't think the summery is Featured Article-quality yet. Ottens 09:20, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Can you please give some other reason? I really don't want another it's too long/it's not long enough debate. And that's not targeting you or anyone else - it's just that length is a highly subjective criterion of which everyone obviously has a unique definition. --Schrei 10:03, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Well then, what, in my opinion, an episode page should look like to be a Featured Article: the page should feature a short description of the episode at the top of the page (and that means more than simply one line); then it should feature a detailed act-by-act summery of the episode's content, accompanied by a number of images which illustrate the text; then there should be some memorable quotes; and then there should be an extended background information section (more than merely naming a few remarkable fact, but really). Thus, "Yesterday's Enterprise" is in my opinion what comes closest to my idea of a nearly-perfect episode page, though the summery could be breaken down in act-sections for clearity. "Trials and Tribble-ations" hardly fulfills any of my criteria, and thus I oppose this nomination. Ottens 12:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) **There's one in every crowd... Ben Sisqo 16:22, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***There's one what in every crowd? Ottens 16:29, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****Yeah, in any given group of people theres always someone who will make a stink about something even after it's been decided upon. Ben Sisqo 16:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***What exactly has been decided upon? I wasn't aware there had been a change in policy? Ottens 16:48, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. I recently watched the episode, and I copyedited this article thinking I could add to the summary, but I found myself quite liking its compact nature. It doesn't skip anything (I added some minor details) and is probably a better summary than Yesterday's Enterprise in my opinion. That said, Ben Sisqo doesn't know what he's talking about. Nothing has been agreed upon, which is why we have so much trouble with this issue in the first place. --Schrei 17:44, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Oppose'. Whilst I heartily disagree with Ottens' view of summary detail, I do think more information as I mentioned above is necessary. This has nothing about how they did the merging of the two episodes, and it's hard to believe such a memorable episode would have no such information available. Makon 00:46, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) **'Comment'. I've added a lot of information to the page, and I think everyone will agree that it's more or less complete now unless I missed very minor things. My above support vote was mostly based on the length issue because I knew the background info was available and hadn't added it yet, but now there's no reason this can't be featured. --Schrei 03:05, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***Wow. I take it back, so my original vote stands. Nicely done! Surely Ottens will change his mind as well once he sees this. Makon 04:46, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *My point was its obvious we dont want uberlong summaries and this one is fine. Ben Sisqo 09:06, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I'm withdrawing my oppose. Although there may be a few little things that could be improved, I think it's quite up to Featured Article-status now. Good work, Schrei! Ottens 14:51, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Support' 1985 15:26, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. I don't usually go for episodes as Featured Articles but this one is just what featured eps should be, IMO. Summary of manageable/readable length, and extensive information on production, background, etc. This is what The Cage should be. Logan 5 17:07, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Archived'--Alan del Beccio 06:29, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC) 30 decks Wondering if anyone has the dialogue of O'Brien suggesting the 1701 has 30 decks -- i thought that the standard 23-deck number was presupposed by writers. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:18, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC) :: Bashir: Clearly we've been going about this search business all wrong, Chief. :: O'Brien: You're right. Why bother searching '''thirty decks', when you can just plunk yourself down at a bar and wait for Darvin to come to you.'' : It sounds to me like O'Brien was estimating to thirty decks. The highest actual deck referenced in the episode was Deck 21.--Tim Thomason 17:57, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC) :: It sounds as if he's talking about K-7. The Enterprise doesn't have a bar and Darvin wasn't on the Enterprise, so it makes more sense to read the "why search 30 decks" like as a reference to the station than to the ship. 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC) This is one of the best web pages I ever saw... but lets add... In Merging the Past and Present, you talk about how they added new characters to old footage; How about lots of pictures, side by side? For example you show "Kirk, Spock, Sisko and Dax" how about the original "Kirk and Spock" before Sisko and Dax were added? I and millions of other fans would love dozens of other examples. I espically like the scene were Kirk opend the hatch and is covered with Tribbles. Then we see the TS9 crue above, pussing them down on him. Just a thought... Keep up the good work Joe Missed opportunity In watching this episode again (on the "Time Travel Fan Collective" DVD set), I was reminded of what I saw as a missed opportunity. When Odo, Worf, Bashir, and O'Brien are in the bar watching the encounter between the Enterprise officers (Scott, Chekov, and the guy who they think is Kirk) and Korax, Worf could have commented that Scotty survives into the 24th century and that he met Scotty when he was rescued from the Jenolen. I'm not saying they had to do very much with that -- certainly I wouldn't have wanted them to get into a discussion of whether they should warn Scott of his fate -- but it would have been a nice nod to continuity. Allergy? At the end of the summary section (3rd to last paragraph) someone has stated that Klingons are allergic to Tribbles. I was under the impression that Klingons simply hated them (presumably because of the effect they would have on agriculture etc.) Was there actually dialogue to back up this assertion? Worf, who like all Klingons is allergic to tribbles --Avron 06:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC) :As an excuse to stay away from the Tribbles for Worf, Bashir tells Sisko that Worf is allergic to them. This is not actually true, Bashir did it to protect Worf's pride. I will make the edit. --OuroborosCobra 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Memorable quotes format Several people are of the opinion that the proper format for separate quotes is to run them all together with no additional vertical space. This looks awful. If this really is the proper way to do this, I suggest that it be changed. Each line of a quote and the attribution line are separate paragraphs, therefore, IMO, you need more than regular paragraph spacing before the next, separate quote. One extra line is enough. 9er 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC) :I prefer a bit more space, but so many people have been reformatting mine to the more mashed style that I've sorta given up on trying to be honest. *sigh* -- Sulfur 21:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC) I added spacing. Let's see if anyone objects. 9er 18:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC) :That's the way I always reformat the quotes, too. I make sure that 1. each line of the quote is quoted (") and italicized (but not indented), 2. the attribution line is indented with one dash (-) and one space before the attribution (but no italics) 3. the attributed characters names are bolded (names only, not any other text), but not linked (characters should have already been linked in the summary) 4. there is no period at the end of the attribution line, and 5. each quote is separated by two spaces (the quote itself is single spaced). I've done that with many articles. :) -- Renegade54 19:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Enterprise-E is the 6th Enterprise? Are we certain that the Enterprise E is the 6th ship being referenced, or is it more likely that they are referring to the Future Enterprise shown in "All good things..."? Certainly it is reasonable to expect that they would have investigated Picard's time traveling. :Um... what? The Enterprise in "All Good Things..." was the ''Enterprise''-D, the fifth ship to bear the name. Star Trek: First Contact was in production at the time this episode was being filmed, so it is most likely a reference to the Enterprise-E. From Andoria with Love 06:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC) ::Also, some people think this suggests that they talk about the Enterprise (NX-01), but that can't be true, as that was not a Federation Starfleet-ship. Just an Earth Starfleet-ship.-- Rom Ulan 14:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC) :That, plus the fact that Star Trek: Enterprise had not even been thought of yet. ;) --From Andoria with Love 12:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC) An issue of tense (and other issues) Here's a bit of trivia as it currently appears: :Worf would later meet Scotty 101 years later in (TNG: "Relics"). I'm not an expert in temporal mechanics, but for the sake of semantics, shouldn't that read that Worf already met Scotty in that episode? The way the sentence is constructed, it makes it sound like it's from Worf's temporal perspective, and logically we should also consider the real-life temporal perspective of the viewers. Yes, the events in question happened 101 years previous to "Relics", but by Worf's (and our) perspective, they've already happened by the time this episode occured. And did the two of them actually meet? Interact at all? Wasn't O'Brien also in both episodes? This bit of trivia seems simple on the surface, but I think it might be in need of a little tweaking. - Ugliness Man 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC) : Yes, a better way to say it would be "Scotty would later meet Worf 101 years later in TNG: "Relics,"" however, that doesn't address the "meeting" issue. Scotty and Worf were in the same room together, and likely exchanged glances offscreen (Worf would look weird to Scotty, and Worf had met an old Scotty 4 years prior), but they didn't do any "Forrest Gump" interaction at all. O'Brien wasn't in "Relics," but he was on the ''Enterprise''-D at the same time. Meaney was in "Realm of Fear" (two episodes prior) and "Rascals" (three episodes later), and would transfer to Deep Space 9 later that year. : Hmmm... I'm not sure how to address the fact that Scotty and Worf would be vaguely in the same vicinity 101 years later/4 years prior at all.--Tim Thomason 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC) What disk is this epidose on? I don't own any of the DS9 DVDs, but I want to watch this particular episode. Which disk should I order off of Netflicks? -- 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC) :This episode can be found on three sets: :* Time Travel fan collective :* Klingon fan collective :* DS9 Season 5 DVD :The discs are listed for each as to where to find the episode. :) -- Sulfur 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Voyager The picture I chose to represent Virtuoso is really not the best to illustrate the significance of the episode being discussed, but it illustrates the gist of things I guess. Another image would still be better though. Ferenginar 09:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Spike Are all syndicated showings of Star Trek episodes heavily cut? When I watched it on Spike, in Act Four, when McCoy comes up to the bridge and begins talking to Kirk, Dax tries to recall, "McCoy… McCoy…". Our view cuts to Sisko as he finishes scanning the ship. I thought this was something cool Paramount planned to allude to McCoy in a later episode. When I read the episode summary here on Memory Alpha, I was shocked that that wasn't the case at all. Before Sisko finishes scanning, Dax seems to recognize McCoy and Sisko identifies him as McCoy, the ship's doctor. Just then, Dax recognizes him, having met him when he was a medical student at Ole Miss. Sisko asks if it was Curzon who met him; she says it was actually Emony, when she was on Earth judging a gymnastics competition. Dax tells Sisko that McCoy had the hands of a surgeon and that she knew he'd be a doctor. Does every TV network cut like Star Trek episodes like this? When I've watched TNG on Spike, I haven't noticed a differance when I've watched the same episode on G4. I also I thought that was why G4 allows 1hour and 10 minutes of airtime to play TOS episodes. I've also seen almost all of TOS on DVD, and I haven't noticed any differences from the TV Land airings, or is this my misunderstanding? Taric25 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC) :Spike is cut, yes. Please keep this discussion in one place, on Talk:Spike. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC) ::Thank you for replying, however, that does not answer my question. Please see Talk:Spike#Spike Edits. Cheers! Taric25 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :Please do not copy my comments into discussions that I did not intend them to be part of. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Speculation for an Explanation. (Or Explanation for a Speculation?) If Trills were already discovered by the Federation by the 2200s and for all we know, there may've already been a few Trills in Starfleet by that time, then why WOULD she want to camouflage her heritage on this mission? --K. Shinohara 06:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)